Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 1,000-hour rule (2009)

pgbovine.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 124 posts

Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)

#111

Post by jacquesm »

kamaal wrote: post #81
jacquesm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are ways around the 'because job' problem. I've been reading a lot on this guys blog: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/ and he's got some pretty interesting ideas on getting off the treadmill, with both actionable advice and the lead character eating his own dogfood.

Most people are astonishingly bad at savings and investments, and this includes some really smart people who fail to make a good recurring income out of windfall scenarios. I tend to see this as failure of humans in general to visualize large structures. There fore similar things like large timelines, growth scenario's, compounding. One would be surprised how common this is. People can think of probably a couple of y…

I've never had a very large amount of cash at my disposal, up to now it was mostly 'cash flow' and I buried as much of it as I could in stones and land.

Now that is changing and I'm back to school because I realize that managing any amount of money is a risky operation and it is too important for me to consider outsourcing the job to so called experts the majority of which appear to be at least as clueless as I am when asked some pointed questions.

So so far the lack of capital has kept me from seeing just how deficient I am in this respect, I was so focused on achieving a certain goal that I lost sight of what to do once it was achieved. Luxury problems, that's for sure, but still, they are problems and I'm fairly determined not to go down the route you sketch.

Thanks for the underlining and implicit warning.

Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)

#112

Post by joeframbach »

diminoten wrote: post #89
joeframbach wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't Science magazine; an interesting or thought-provoking idea is just as valuable as a repeatable experiment.

Yes, in the same way a good fiction story is. "Wouldn't it be nice if life were so simple as I'm about to describe?" But this doesn't present itself as a fiction, this presents itself as true, when it's clearly the case that the author has no idea if it's true or not, having not done the requisite legwork to verify.

> to become good at something, which I think requires far less time and dedication.

> I claim that it takes roughly 1,000 hours of practice

It presents itself as neither fiction nor reference. It presents itself as a thought and a claim.

Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)

#113

Post by crpatino »

snoman wrote: post #98
superuser2 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having kids is optional. That's a voluntary sacrifice in a way that having a job is very much not. They don't really belong in the same breath.

> Having kids is optional. Choosing not to participate in a fundamental experience of the human condition is no more a choice than choosing not to have a job.

On the other hand, your job will be very happy to expand and take all "family time" that you have voluntarily chosen to forgo. Going with the flow takes you where the flow takes everybody else. You must first learn what is valuable for you and then plan your life around those values, not the other way around.

Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)

#114

Post by superuser2 »

snoman wrote: post #98
superuser2 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having kids is optional. That's a voluntary sacrifice in a way that having a job is very much not. They don't really belong in the same breath.

> Having kids is optional. Choosing not to participate in a fundamental experience of the human condition is no more a choice than choosing not to have a job.

If this is your mindset, then you've made a choice to value having children over other things like free time and disposable income. Perfectly valid.

Other people do not share your priorities.

Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)

#115

Post by disputin »

adfgadfsg wrote: post #97
disputin wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citizen's income is no fantasy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

What is the difference between these proposals and fantasy at this point? As this article points out, the idea has been around a long time, yet has not been implemented on any wide scale, why will this ever change?

Is it expected that I respond to the throw-away account of a down-voting anonymous coward?

Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)

#116

Post by xp3ll3d »

graeme wrote: post #11
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #2

I like the doable attitude of this - and the words hold true. Very few 'inspirational' things I read actually manage to break things down to something reasonable. Once the teacher strikes here (In norway) stop, I start language classes. The teacher doing the initial questions told me I have 550 hours of required language classes - but then made sure I know I get up to 3000, with the note that 550 hours really isn't e…

That seems excessive. Pimsleur uses 45 hours of lessons over 90 days. I've used it for Italian, Portuguese and German. In each case, I've been able to have conversations with native speakers after the program ended. The next step, to really master any of them, would be going to one of those countries. Suppose I spend four hours a day in conversation with native speakers. 1 week = 28 hours. 3 months = 336 hours. Total…

For anyone that is interested in picking up a language really quickly, I can highly recommend Fluenz http://fluenz.com/ I tried the Pimsleur audio lessons, but I am a visual learner. Fluenz structured things very easily. After 2 hours I could point and say I wanted items. 6 hours I could say I want to look at things and talk about other people. I'm at the 12 goes out lessons point and I can now go into shops and ask basic questions and know how to ask about prices. I'm doing this with just 1 hour every few days with the lessons.

Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)

#117

Post by 3pt14159 »

jacquesm wrote: post #106
3pt14159 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was a small child my dad taught me how to take apart motorcycle engines, while my mom taught me QBASIC and getting around in DOS. You'd be surprised at how much children can learn even at a very young age if you don't make it look harder than it is.

Or even simply because you do it. Not making it look harder than it is is a step up from simply having a lack of fear of getting your hands dirty and trying things. Taking your time, having a notebook and/or a digital camera and you can pretty much take anything apart with a reasonable chance that you can put it back together again. I first got my taste of powertools when I was 12, visited a friend of my moms who did…

That is awesome!

I was only 4 years old when my dad trusted me around scary things like torque wrenches and lathes. It wasn't until I was 10 that we were able to put together the whole engine again.

I feel like it is kinda cheating at life to have really, really good parenting.

Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)

#118

Post by halfcat »

superuser2 wrote: post #114
snoman wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having kids is optional. Choosing not to participate in a fundamental experience of the human condition is no more a choice than choosing not to have a job.

If this is your mindset, then you've made a choice to value having children over other things like free time and disposable income. Perfectly valid. Other people do not share your priorities.

And only one of these sets of priorities is self-centered.

Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)

#119

Post by superuser2 »

halfcat wrote: post #118
superuser2 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is your mindset, then you've made a choice to value having children over other things like free time and disposable income. Perfectly valid. Other people do not share your priorities.

And only one of these sets of priorities is self-centered.

The sacrifices you make to raise a child after it's born are certainly altruistic.

The decision to have a child in the first place is entirely self-centered (or maybe centered on a partner who is him/herself self-centered.) Humans are not in danger of dying out because we're breeding too slowly; if anything, it'll be the opposite.

Which is not to say that it's bad, but (assuming you are actually financially and emotionally capable of raising the kid) no better or worse than choosing differently.

Condescension from people with attitudes like yours is why millions of people who know they will be complete failures as parents decide to inflict themselves and their circumstances on innocent children who don't deserve that kind of suffering.

Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)

#120

Post by PhantomGremlin »

jliechti1 wrote: post #7
oskarth wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1000 focused hours for most European languages is really good, see for example these quotes: Deutsche Welle suggests A1 is reached with about 75 hours of German tuition, A2.1 with about 150 hours, A2.2 with about 225 hours, B1.1 with about 300 hours, and B1.2 with about 400 hours.[5] Cambridge ESOL said that each level is reached with the following guided learning hours: A2, 180–200; B1, 350–400; B2, 500–600; C1, 700…

> They key is to make the practice good practice, and not just mindless repetition. This - it needs to be emphasized more. I feel a bit pedantic when I make this point, but I really think it's crucial. If you read the original research, it's not 10000 hours of just practice. There is a reason many people can play golf for 30 years (and probably accumulate 10000+ hours of play), but still never even get close to shoot…

Here's how Jerry Rice, probably the greatest wide receiver of all time, practiced: http://jamesclear.com/jerry-rice It's a short read and very instructive.

One amazing thing is just how that practice translated into so little time in actual games. I.e. if a football team plays 20 games a year (1 hour each), and the offense is only out there half the time, then a wide receiver is playing for at most 10 hours a year. Jerry Rice played for 20 years, so that works out to 200 hours of actual game time over his entire career!

Post reply on HN